Around the NHL [Jets re-sign Little/Wheeler/Bogosian]

It was seen as a bad move because Rick Nash is not the type of player you gut your team's depth for, just as with Gaborik. Sather after many years at the helm still doesn't get it. You don't give up top quality assets for good, but non-elite wingers on large cap hit contracts. And I've been echoing those sentiments well before he was traded here. Just take a look at the dozen of Nash discussion threads on the trade sections of the boards, constantly defending the Rangers players offered in trade proposals.

Opinion. And one i strongly disagree with. Nash is a gamebreaker that this team hasn't seen since Jagr. He is a much better guy to lean on offensively over Gaborik. Gaborik was also my favorite player while he was here.

If you don't think Nash is an elite winger than I can see the disconnect between you and nearly every poster on this board.

Do you watch the games or just the stat sheet?

Quote:

Yes, I would definitely prefer that route instead. And no, I didn't say completely ignore trades and free agent signings. I said to avoid the big contract ones like the Gomezs Drurys Reddens Holiks Gaboriks and Nashs of the worlds. That is simply not a sustainable method of building top end talent through free agency. Sure it can work at times, but the bulk of elite players in today's league are usually top picks from respective rosters.

Show me contending teams that don't have large contracts on the books. Whether they're home grown or not, when guys become good, you have to pay them.

Quote:

Haha this can't be any further from the truth, but somehow it is. Ive constantly defended many players on this roster, so by no means do I hate everything in this organization. Just look at the Stepan thread in late January when everyone was completely tearing into him or even the end of season Lundqvist, Torts, Boyle Girardi, Boyle and MDZ threads.

You are always negative against this team. How old were you during the dark ages? Honestly. You have no clue how different it is watching this kind of young, contending group, versus an organization that didn't have a clue.

Also, you constantly rip on the 94' team. Truly don't believe you were even alive or of the right mind to know what the team was like.

I thought Ail was joking around, but I can see he was right all along! You pick fights with pretty much every poster you disagree with.

Was curious to see what some Ranger fans thought of the Schnieder deal and I was pleased to see even most of you guys thought the deal was in the Devils favor. I just want to thank you for viewing the Devils in as unbiased an eye as possible. The heat you took for using FACTS and being called ridiculous for stating FACTS is simply preposterous. Regardless of the views, someone in this thread came off as a hockey fan and someone came off as a complete child. Congrats on being the former. You're okay in my book.

It is not a case of revisionist history when I've never been a fan from day 1.

the issue has never been if you were a fan of the Nash trade or not. I couldn't care less if you were. You stated that a perfect example of this organization/GM lack of plan, vision etc. was the Nash/Gaborik "swap".

Again you craft your arguments after the fact, which is very convenient, but all it does is convince you, not me. I don't believe the intention initially was a swap, but for Nash to play alongside Gaborik.

Opinion. And one i strongly disagree with. Nash is a gamebreaker that this team hasn't seen since Jagr. He is a much better guy to lean on offensively over Gaborik. Gaborik was also my favorite player while he was here.

If you don't think Nash is an elite winger than I can see the disconnect between you and nearly every poster on this board.

Do you watch the games or just the stat sheet?

Show me contending teams that don't have large contracts on the books. Whether they're home grown or not, when guys become good, you have to pay them.

You are always negative against this team. How old were you during the dark ages? Honestly. You have no clue how different it is watching this kind of young, contending group, versus an organization that didn't have a clue.

Also, you constantly rip on the 94' team. Truly don't believe you were even alive or of the right mind to know what the team was like.

the issue has never been if you were a fan of the Nash trade or not. I couldn't care less if you were. You stated that a perfect example of this organization/GM lack of plan, vision etc. was the Nash/Gaborik "swap".

Again you craft your arguments after the fact, which is very convenient, but all it does is convince you, not me. I don't believe the intention initially was a swap, but for Nash to play alongside Gaborik.

Exactly. And while I'll bash Sather for nearly anything, I don't think anyone expected Gaborik to struggle the way he did. Same with Richards. If Richards and Gaborik are playing as well as they should have, the Rangers finish a LOT higher in the standings and likely make a cup run.

Was curious to see what some Ranger fans thought of the Schnieder deal and I was pleased to see even most of you guys thought the deal was in the Devils favor. I just want to thank you for viewing the Devils in as unbiased an eye as possible. The heat you took for using FACTS and being called ridiculous for stating FACTS is simply preposterous. Regardless of the views, someone in this thread came off as a hockey fan and someone came off as a complete child. Congrats on being the former. You're okay in my book.

I'd rather not start a huge argument again, but I will ask you this: Do you think the Devils were a better team than the Rangers this year?

I'd rather not start a huge argument again, but I will ask you this: Do you think the Devils were a better team than the Rangers this year?

This year? No. Not at all.

The Devils record with Brodeur + Kovy both in the lineup was outstanding. The problem is Brodeur went down and Hedberg completely sucked, team lost like 5 straight. When he finally came back, Kovy went down and we lost 10 straight.

Like Kershaw said, we completely dominated some games and still came out with losses. The Leafs game is the best example. We outshot Toronto like 28-6 through 2 periods and were tied 0-0. It wasn't just a case of shooting every chance we got and shooting terrible shots, although that did happen at times, but bome of these were tic-tac-toe bang-bang plays that led to highway robbery saves and posts. It was a frustrating season because the Devils dominated almost every game they played and still lost.

If the Devils can sign or at least replace Clarkson, and Schnieder plays 40-45 games next year, I do believe the Devils will be better than the Rangers. Not trying to start a fight on that, just an opinion. I think the Rangers and Devils are both 5-8 seeds.

Opinion. And one i strongly disagree with. Nash is a gamebreaker that this team hasn't seen since Jagr. He is a much better guy to lean on offensively over Gaborik. Gaborik was also my favorite player while he was here.

That is a matter of opinion I guess. I think both are 1rst line talents, but neither are players you primarily build your offense around. Unfortunately, the team officials disagree.

Quote:

If you don't think Nash is an elite winger than I can see the disconnect between you and nearly every poster on this board.

Nash is an elite player at his positon, I don't feel he is a franchise talent. I feel very few wingers are held in that regard. Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Kane, MSL and Hall IMO are franchise talents at wing. It's much rarer to see a winger have an impact on the game than centers.

Quote:

Do you watch the games or just the stat sheet?

I watch games and use the stat sheet.

Quote:

Show me contending teams that don't have large contracts on the books. Whether they're home grown or not, when guys become good, you have to pay them.

A large portion of teams develop their talent from homegrown players. I feel that those should secondary pieces via FA signings and trades, but the bulk and core of the team should be drafted. The Rangers are doing well in that regard, they just haven't struck an elite player yet outside of Lundqvist. Sure fire elite players are drafted top 2.

Quote:

You are always negative against this team. How old were you during the dark ages? Honestly. You have no clue how different it is watching this kind of young, contending group, versus an organization that didn't have a clue.

It shouldn't matter how old I was in the dark ages. The same organization that didn't have a clue during the dark ages are still the same team managing it right now (Sather). And what Sather's shown me in 13 yrs is a lack of vision for today's game.

Quote:

Also, you constantly rip on the 94' team. Truly don't believe you were even alive or of the right mind to know what the team was like.

I could care less about the 1994 anymore. Believe me, I own VHS sets of that team and I used to watch re-runs each day while getting into the game. However, there is a time where you've got to move on. I didn't get to watch it or experience it, but it was freaking 19 years ago.

The Devils record with Brodeur + Kovy both in the lineup was outstanding. The problem is Brodeur went down and Hedberg completely sucked, team lost like 5 straight. When he finally came back, Kovy went down and we lost 10 straight.

Like Kershaw said, we completely dominated some games and still came out with losses. The Leafs game is the best example. We outshot Toronto like 28-6 through 2 periods and were tied 0-0. It wasn't just a case of shooting every chance we got and shooting terrible shots, although that did happen at times, but bome of these were tic-tac-toe bang-bang plays that led to highway robbery saves and posts. It was a frustrating season because the Devils dominated almost every game they played and still lost.

If the Devils can sign or at least replace Clarkson, and Schnieder plays 40-45 games next year, I do believe the Devils will be better than the Rangers. Not trying to start a fight on that, just an opinion. I think the Rangers and Devils are both 5-8 seeds.

Disagree on opinion but Schniedy was a good trade. Devs have some glaring deficiencies on D but if Clarky resigns/replaced and a young 3rd line steps up (Lokomotiv, tedenby, josefsen) then you should be ok, objectively.

Was curious to see what some Ranger fans thought of the Schnieder deal and I was pleased to see even most of you guys thought the deal was in the Devils favor. I just want to thank you for viewing the Devils in as unbiased an eye as possible. The heat you took for using FACTS and being called ridiculous for stating FACTS is simply preposterous. Regardless of the views, someone in this thread came off as a hockey fan and someone came off as a complete child. Congrats on being the former. You're okay in my book.

That is a matter of opinion I guess. I think both are 1rst line talents, but neither are players you primarily build your offense around. Unfortunately, the team officials disagree.

Nash is an elite player at his positon, I don't feel he is a franchise talent. I feel very few wingers are held in that regard. Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Kane, MSL and Hall IMO are franchise talents at wing. It's much rarer to see a winger have an impact on the game than centers.

I watch games and use the stat sheet.

A large portion of teams develop their talent from homegrown players. I feel that those should secondary pieces via FA signings and trades, but the bulk and core of the team should be drafted. The Rangers are doing well in that regard, they just haven't struck an elite player yet outside of Lundqvist. Sure fire elite players a

It shouldn't matter how old I was in the dark ages. The same organization that didn't have a clue during the dark ages are still the same team managing it right now (Sather). And what Sather's shown me in 13 yrs is a lack of vision for today's game.

I could care less about the 1994 anymore. Believe me, I own VHS sets of that team and I used to watch re-runs each day while getting into the game. However, there is a time where you've got to move on. I didn't get to watch it or experience it, but it was freaking 19 years ago.

Is there a competitve team that has built an offense around one player besides argubly washington and the devils?

the issue has never been if you were a fan of the Nash trade or not. I couldn't care less if you were. You stated that a perfect example of this organization/GM lack of plan, vision etc. was the Nash/Gaborik "swap".

Again you craft your arguments after the fact, which is very convenient, but all it does is convince you, not me. I don't believe the intention initially was a swap, but for Nash to play alongside Gaborik.

Okay, even if that was the intention, was their intention also to not roll out a bottom 6? Rely on 2 line offense?

Okay, even if that was the intention, was their intention also to not roll out a bottom 6? Rely on 2 line offense?

On paper before the season they should have had 4 decent lines. Problem was more they had a lot of guys not show up. They had essentially three centers who did nothing, and a bunch of wings who did nothing.

But before the season I'm not sure anyone would have known hey would all disappear.

Slightly off topic (on topic actually) but having no cap room is the best thing for a Sather team, always hate to see what he does when he has the cap space to sign anyone he wants

It was seen as a bad move because Rick Nash is not the type of player you gut your team's depth for, just as with Gaborik. Sather after many years at the helm still doesn't get it. You don't give up top quality assets for good, but non-elite wingers on large cap hit contracts. And I've been echoing those sentiments well before he was traded here. Just take a look at the dozen of Nash discussion threads on the trade sections of the boards, constantly defending the Rangers players offered in trade proposals.

Yes, I would definitely prefer that route instead. And no, I didn't say completely ignore trades and free agent signings. I said to avoid the big contract ones like the Gomezs Drurys Reddens Holiks Gaboriks and Nashs of the worlds. That is simply not a sustainable method of building top end talent through free agency. Sure it can work at times, but the bulk of elite players in today's league are usually top picks from respective rosters.

Haha this can't be any further from the truth, but somehow it is. Ive constantly defended many players on this roster, so by no means do I hate everything in this organization. Just look at the Stepan thread in late January when everyone was completely tearing into him or even the end of season Lundqvist, Torts, Boyle Girardi, Boyle and MDZ threads.

On paper before the season they should have had 4 decent lines. Problem was more they had a lot of guys not show up. They had essentially three centers who did nothing, and a bunch of wings who did nothing.

But before the season I'm not sure anyone would have known hey would all disappear.

Slightly off topic (on topic actually) but having no cap room is the best thing for a Sather team, always hate to see what he does when he has the cap space to sign anyone he wants

Perhaps, but look at their roster to start the season. They signed Taylor Pyatt with the intention of him being a 3rd line player to start the season. Hell, he even moved up to the top 2 lines when he was scoring on his limited scoring chances at an unsustainable rate. They had Boyle on 3C, Asham as a regular player, Jeff Halpern as 4C, Mike Rupp as regular Bickel as opening day starter, Brandon Segal experiment, etc. They had a bunch of borderline NHL players or useless plugs in the bottom 6 to start the season.

Perhaps, but look at their roster to start the season. They signed Taylor Pyatt with the intention of him being a 3rd line player to start the season. Hell, he even moved up to the top 2 lines when he was scoring on his limited scoring chances at an unsustainable rate. They had Boyle on 3C, Asham as a regular player, Jeff Halpern as 4C, Mike Rupp as regular Bickel as opening day starter, Brandon Segal experiment, etc. They had a bunch of borderline NHL players or useless plugs in the bottom 6 to start the season.

Well they had a crap ton of guys regress in a major way at the same time, rupp, Boyle, Richards, halpern, etc. which made the depth issues much more serious.

Part of that of course should have been expected, relying on 30+ year olds who were never great skaters to begin with should always be a concern. But I do think the regression played more or a role in it than you believe.

But I much agree with your overall view anyway. I would much rather have 3 20 goal scores than 1 40 goal scorer.

Perhaps, but look at their roster to start the season. They signed Taylor Pyatt with the intention of him being a 3rd line player to start the season. Hell, he even moved up to the top 2 lines when he was scoring on his limited scoring chances at an unsustainable rate. They had Boyle on 3C, Asham as a regular player, Jeff Halpern as 4C, Mike Rupp as regular Bickel as opening day starter, Brandon Segal experiment, etc. They had a bunch of borderline NHL players or useless plugs in the bottom 6 to start the season.

I agree that the roster was top heavy, but the team failed because of the on ice performance (whether it be coaching, the players, or a combination of both) not the way the roster was built. Gaborik, Richards, Pyatt, Boyle, Kreider, Del Zotto, and Girardi didn't perform up to expectations. Guys like Callahan, McDonagh, Hagelin, and Stralman were about on par. The only player that took the next step was Stepan and maybe Nash considering how his game trailed towards the end of his time in Columbus.

Well they had a crap ton of guys regress in a major way at the same time, rupp, Boyle, Richards, halpern, etc. which made the depth issues much more serious.

Part of that of course should have been expected, relying on 30+ year olds who were never great skaters to begin with should always be a concern. But I do think the regression played more or a role in it than you believe.

But I much agree with your overall view anyway. I would much rather have 3 20 goal scores than 1 40 goal scorer.

I agree, the regression of Richards and Gaborik and the lack of progression by Kreider really stung that team, but I think the team would've still been in major trouble due to the lack of overall team depth. The 'depth' guys like Asham, Rupp, Pyatt, Segal were never that good to begin with.

Well they had a crap ton of guys regress in a major way at the same time, rupp, Boyle, Richards, halpern, etc. which made the depth issues much more serious.

Part of that of course should have been expected, relying on 30+ year olds who were never great skaters to begin with should always be a concern. But I do think the regression played more or a role in it than you believe.

But I much agree with your overall view anyway. I would much rather have 3 20 goal scores than 1 40 goal scorer.

Now that I think about it, we started this past season with 4 players in the bottom 6 that were 30+. .

Brandon Dubinsky would be at worst a 2nd line player on this roster. So I guess he may not be a top quality asset, he is still a good roster player to have. Similar to Callahan. When people talk about the 'role' that Ryane Clowe filled in the lineup for 12 and a 1/2 Rangers games, Dubinsky was the guy who did that to a T for the majority of his NYR tenure.

Halpern was always a pretty good skater, but honestly, how is a line like that supposed to actually be effective?

I mean I watch a team like the Blues play a fourth line of Cracknell, Reaves, and Porter, both wings are 210+ pounds and ~25 years old, and the center is a 200 pound 28 year old. They bring so much energy and enthusiasm. I get jealous watching them to be honest, because I don't remember the last time the rangers had an energy line that actually brought energy more than maybe one shift or one fight